Stigmatization is common in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and correlates with quality of life

Background and aims: Stigmatization is a well-documented problem of some diseases. Perceived stigma is common in alcohol-related liver disease and hepatitis C, but little information exists on stigma in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Aim of the study was to investigate frequency and characteristics of perceived stigma among patients with NAFLD. Methods: One-hundred and ninety-seven patients seen at the liver clinic were included: a study group of 144 patients with NAFLD, 50 with cirrhosis (34 compensated, 16 decompensated), and a control group of 53 patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected. Quality-of-life was assessed by chronic liver disease questionnaire (CLDQ). Perceived stigma was assessed using a specific questionnaire for patients with liver diseases categorized in 4 domains: stereotypes, discrimination, shame, and social isolation. Results: Perceived stigma was common in patients with NAFLD (99 patients, 69%) and affected all 4 domains assessed. The frequency was slightly higher, yet not significant, in patients with NAFLD cirrhosis vs those without (72% vs 67%, respectively; p = 0.576). In patients without cirrhosis perceived stigma was unrelated to stage of disease, since frequency was similar in patients with no or mild fibrosis compared to those with moderate/severe fibrosis (66% vs 68%, respectively). There were no differences in perceived stigma between patients with compensated cirrhosis and these with decompensated cirrhosis. Among patients with cirrhosis, stigmatization was more common in alcohol-related vs NAFLD-cirrhosis, yet differences were only significant in two domains. In patients with NAFLD, perceived stigma correlated with poor quality-of-life, but not with demographic or clinical variables. Conclusions: Perceived stigmatization is common among patients with NAFLD independently of disease stage, is associated with impaired quality-of-life, and may be responsible for stereotypes, discrimination, shame, and social isolation, which may affect human and social rights of affected patients

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Medications for alcohol use disorder promote abstinence in alcohol-related cirrhosis: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and aims: The role of medications for alcohol use disorder (MAUD) in patients with cirrhosis is not well established. Evidence on the efficacy and safety of these drugs in these patients is scarce. Approach and results: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocol guidelines on the efficacy of MAUD in patients with cirrhosis. A search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, including all studies until May 2022. The population was defined as patients with AUD and cirrhosis. The primary outcome was alcohol abstinence. Safety was a secondary outcome. We performed a random-effect analysis and expressed the results as relative risk of alcohol consumption. Heterogeneity was measured by I2 . Out of 4095 unique references, 8 studies on 4 different AUD treatments [baclofen (n = 6), metadoxine (n = 1), acamprosate (n = 1), and fecal microbiota transplant (n = 1)] in a total of 794 patients were included. Four were cohort studies, and 4 were RCTs. Only RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. MAUD was associated with a reduced rate of alcohol consumption [relative risk = 0.68 (CI: 0.48-0.97), P = 0.03], increasing alcohol abstinence by 32% compared to placebo or standard treatment, despite high heterogeneity ( I2 = 67%). Regarding safety, out of 165 serious adverse events in patients treated with MAUD, only 5 (3%) were possibly or probably related to study medications. Conclusion: MAUD in patients with cirrhosis is effective in promoting alcohol abstinence and has a good safety profile. Larger studies on the effects of MAUD are needed, especially in patients with advanced liver disease

Patterns of kidney dysfunction in acute‐on‐chronic liver failure: Relationship with kidney and patients’ outcome

Abstract Impairment of kidney function is common in acute‐on‐chronic liver failure (ACLF). Patterns of kidney dysfunction and their impact on kidney and patient outcomes are ill‐defined. Aims of the current study were to investigate patterns of kidney dysfunction and their impact on kidney and patient outcomes in patients with acute decompensation (AD) of cirrhosis, with or without ACLF. This prospective study includes 639 admissions for AD (232 with ACLF; 407 without) in 518 patients. Data were collected at admission and during hospitalization, and patients were followed up for 3 months. Urine samples were analyzed for kidney biomarkers. Most patients with ACLF (92%) had associated acute kidney injury (AKI), in most cases without previous chronic kidney disease (CKD), whereas some had AKI‐on‐CKD (70% and 22%, respectively). Prevalence of AKI in patients without ACLF was 35% (p < 0.001 vs. ACLF). Frequency of CKD alone was low and similar in both groups (4% and 3%, respectively); only a few patients with ACLF (4%) had no kidney dysfunction. AKI in ACLF was associated with poor kidney and patient outcomes compared with no ACLF (AKI resolution: 54% vs. 89%; 3‐month survival: 51% vs. 86%, respectively; p < 0.001 for both). Independent predictive factors of 3‐month survival were Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease–Sodium score, ACLF status, and urine neutrophil gelatinase–associated lipocalin (NGAL). AKI is almost universal in patients with ACLF, sometimes associated with CKD, whereas CKD alone is uncommon. Prognosis of AKI depends on ACLF status. AKI without ACLF has good prognosis. Best predictors of 3‐month survival are MELD‐Na, ACLF status, and urine NGAL

Management practices for postdural puncture headache in obstetrics: a prospective, international, cohort study

© 2020 British Journal of AnaesthesiaBackground: Accidental dural puncture is an uncommon complication of epidural analgesia and can cause postdural puncture headache (PDPH). We aimed to describe management practices and outcomes after PDPH treated by epidural blood patch (EBP) or no EBP. Methods: Following ethics committee approval, patients who developed PDPH after accidental dural puncture were recruited from participating countries and divided into two groups, those receiving EBP or no EBP. Data registered included patient and procedure characteristics, headache symptoms and intensity, management practices, and complications. Follow-up was at 3 months. Results: A total of 1001 patients from 24 countries were included, of which 647 (64.6%) received an EBP and 354 (35.4%) did not receive an EBP (no-EBP). Higher initial headache intensity was associated with greater use of EBP, odds ratio 1.29 (95% confidence interval 1.19–1.41) per pain intensity unit increase. Headache intensity declined sharply at 4 h after EBP and 127 (19.3%) patients received a second EBP. On average, no or mild headache (numeric rating score≤3) was observed 7 days after diagnosis. Intracranial bleeding was diagnosed in three patients (0.46%), and backache, headache, and analgesic use were more common at 3 months in the EBP group. Conclusions: Management practices vary between countries, but EBP was more often used in patients with greater initial headache intensity. EBP reduced headache intensity quickly, but about 20% of patients needed a second EBP. After 7 days, most patients had no or mild headache. Backache, headache, and analgesic use were more common at 3 months in patients receiving an EBP

Management practices for postdural puncture headache in obstetrics : a prospective, international, cohort study

Background: Accidental dural puncture is an uncommon complication of epidural analgesia and can cause postdural puncture headache (PDPH). We aimed to describe management practices and outcomes after PDPH treated by epidural blood patch (EBP) or no EBP. Methods: Following ethics committee approval, patients who developed PDPH after accidental dural puncture were recruited from participating countries and divided into two groups, those receiving EBP or no EBP. Data registered included patient and procedure characteristics, headache symptoms and intensity, management practices, and complications. Follow-up was at 3 months. Results: A total of 1001 patients from 24 countries were included, of which 647 (64.6%) received an EBP and 354 (35.4%) did not receive an EBP (no-EBP). Higher initial headache intensity was associated with greater use of EBP, odds ratio 1.29 (95% confidence interval 1.19-1.41) per pain intensity unit increase. Headache intensity declined sharply at 4 h after EBP and 127 (19.3%) patients received a second EBP. On average, no or mild headache (numeric rating score <= 3) was observed 7 days after diagnosis. Intracranial bleeding was diagnosed in three patients (0.46%), and backache, headache, and analgesic use were more common at 3 months in the EBP group. Conclusions: Management practices vary between countries, but EBP was more often used in patients with greater initial headache intensity. EBP reduced headache intensity quickly, but about 20% of patients needed a second EBP. After 7 days, most patients had no or mild headache. Backache, headache, and analgesic use were more common at 3 months in patients receiving an EBP